Lol, I am happy that you finally came around to my side?
For the record and my last post in this thread. Not a chance Ruffy.:smile:
TWU law school snub
- Thread starter gerryh
- Start date
For the record and my last post in this thread. Not a chance Ruffy.:smile:
"However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way." (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)
This is in the bible, so nobody can question me if I keep keep a few slaves around the house?
"If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife." Deuteronomy 22:23-24 NAB
How about killing rape victims, is that cool?
Discrimination is not just a legal issue, though the Upper Canada Law Society notes that these actions would be against the Ontario Human Rights Code, which does not have the same exemptions.
Like I said though, discrimination is not something that only exists within the legal context. It is a word and a concept on its own. This case isn't about if they are breaking BC law, it is if they are discriminating in the most basic definition of the word.
What are you talking about? Similar implicitly means different. Saying that somethings are similar does not mean they are the same. Do you need a dictionary?
These cases are clearly not exactly the same. There are clear differences, like jurisdiction seeing as the law societies in question are not from BC as the college of teachers was.
This is in the bible, so nobody can question me if I keep keep a few slaves around the house?
"If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife." Deuteronomy 22:23-24 NAB
How about killing rape victims, is that cool?
Discrimination is not just a legal issue, though the Upper Canada Law Society notes that these actions would be against the Ontario Human Rights Code, which does not have the same exemptions.
Like I said though, discrimination is not something that only exists within the legal context. It is a word and a concept on its own. This case isn't about if they are breaking BC law, it is if they are discriminating in the most basic definition of the word.
What are you talking about? Similar implicitly means different. Saying that somethings are similar does not mean they are the same. Do you need a dictionary?
These cases are clearly not exactly the same. There are clear differences, like jurisdiction seeing as the law societies in question are not from BC as the college of teachers was.
ROFLMAO!!!!
The last gasp of one defeated by law and logic.
Just for fun I will even address this nonsense....Many decades ago the most of the Judeo-christian religions did away with such passages as reality. Considering these passages come from a Jewish text the christians may claim no regard for them at all. The point being that things within the teachings of the churches has changed over the centuries and changed very rapidly in the last couple of decades. Given that some branches are not only recognizing gay marriage but performing the ceremonies and allowing gay priests (or even gay female priests) any sane and logical person would assume that in time the doctrine followed by the church as a whole may change to such a progressive nature. As it stands right now the school and it's sponsor have done nothing illegal and that should be where it ends for a bunch of lawyers. Unless of course they are an activist professional association trying to bar an activist school from creating professional activists.
ROFLMAO!!!!
The last gasp of one defeated by law and logic.
Just for fun I will even address this nonsense....Many decades ago the most of the Judeo-christian religions did away with such passages as reality. Considering these passages come from a Jewish text the christians may claim no regard for them at all. The point being that things within the teachings of the churches has changed over the centuries and changed very rapidly in the last couple of decades. Given that some branches are not only recognizing gay marriage but performing the ceremonies and allowing gay priests (or even gay female priests) any sane and logical person would assume that in time the doctrine followed by the church as a whole may change to such a progressive nature. As it stands right now the school and it's sponsor have done nothing illegal and that should be where it ends for a bunch of lawyers. Unless of course they are an activist professional association trying to bar an activist school from creating professional activists.
Who gets to decide what is ok based on religious grounds and what isn't? The bible says a whole lot of terrible stuff. Lots of people disagree on what the bible tells you to do.
This is a real problem when it comes to using the bible to defend anything. If even believers can ignore large parts of it, what makes the parts they choose to follow of any merit either?
Lets be clear on the "law and logic" thing. Nobody ever claimed that what they were doing at the school was breaking the law, so I don't know how you can "defeat" somebody on a point that was never being discussed. The problem is that they discriminate, not that they break one of the many laws that try to protect people from discrimination.
It is when in front of the SCOC. Get a grip!
But it is exempt and legal under the Charter which trumps the Ontario commission.
So you believe a group of lawyers are correct to ignore the law and base decisions upon some persons definition and concept of a word. :lol:
It is going to the SCOC (where the society will eventually lose) precisely because it is about the law. If it were about your definition of a word it could be adjudicated by Websters.;-)
Jurisdiction for the SCOC is all of Canada. They are both professional associations and any rulings will be applied to ALL professional associations including plumbers and welders truck drivers by the precedent. Got anything else???
The SCOC never ruled on if TWU broke human rights law. That was never part of the trial. It was about if the college of teachers could block graduates from teaching in BC.
Does nobody in this thread have a clue what the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is?
The charter doesn't trump human rights codes. They are different laws that apply to very different situations.
This is just fundamental stupidity on your part.
Human rights codes don't define what discrimination is, they simply provide a mechanism to prosecute people over some forms of discrimination in some circumstances. The law society is not trying to charge them with a human rights violation. They are choosing not to accredit them because they disagree with their practices.
This is in no way what the last SCOC case was about, or what this case would be about if it went to court.
Like gerryh said, it is a private Christian school. This behavior will never occur. The students that go there respect the Bible and follow its teachings. When there is no occurance of a matter, no law is needed for that matter.
Then why the hell do they have the rule? Why not change the rule and make everyone happy?
Why should they change the rule? To make ignorant, bigoted a$$holes like you and paradox happy?
And the SCOC ruled they couldn't block graduates from teaching because there were no laws broken. The same way it will rule on this case based upon precedent.
I already answered once...it is the useless piece of the constitution act that gives people the illusion of freedom. It also happens to be where all the human rights laws are derived from.
While you can have a charter violation that isn't a human rights infringement you cannot have a human rights violation that isn't a charter violation. Do you follow sonny?
Apparently so G. :-(
Nope. It had nothing to do with if TWU was breaking the law. Read up on it if you want to discuss it.
Lol, that seems pretty unlikely seeing as some human rights codes in Canada predate the Charter by 20 years. The BC code predates the charter by 9 years.
This is just so so so wrong. The charter only applies to issues between the government and the citizens. Did nobody here get even the most basic civics education?
Refusing to serve black people in your restaurant is a human rights code violation, but it is in no way a violation of the charter of human rights and freedoms, since it simply has not application to that situation.
Because it is wrong. Even the people who support the school seem to be arguing that kicking someone out of school for being gay would be wrong.
Do you think that would be ok?
If it's not ok, then they shouldn't have it in their rules.
"Equality Rights
15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability."
This is not a philosophical question.
Man, some people can really get and stay mad at those that have a religious faith. I mean, really mad and stuff.
Absolutely zero tolerance for those with opposing opinions.
It would be more hilarious if it wasn't so goddamn sad.
Oh well, as they say, they're an example of 'how not to be'. ;-)
Absolutely zero tolerance for those with opposing opinions.
It would be more hilarious if it wasn't so goddamn sad.
Oh well, as they say, they're an example of 'how not to be'. ;-)
Not every situation can really be satisfied by agreeing to disagree. Some things in this world are right and some things are wrong.
Do you think that restricting access to gay people is right?
What about the students who can't go because they are gay or don't want to get married?
Why should straight christian people have more options for law school than gay people?
A lot of people who pontificate about freedom seem to constantly overlook instances where their actions affect others. Gay people will have more people to fight with for jobs, but no increased access to law school that the straight christian people will be getting.
One can not be "kicked out" for being gay. More fear mongering by the perpetually ignorant.
I have posted the link to the rules many times already, do you need to see it again?
It clearly spells out what can happen to you if your don't follow the covenant, which includes expulsion.
If you don't think they would actually do it, that is a different issue. The fact is that that is what they have in their rule book.